Why you think "Prove God doesn't exist" is a logical argument.
I have seen this in too many places. That is why I ask, I am seriously intrigued on this.
It's an Attempt to make the term "prove God exists", sound disingenuous. As it would seem anyway.
......it just an argument Believers use to heap more Judgement charges on the non-believers. They think it scores them more points in the Book of Life.
I think it's a valid argument as a retort. No one should be forced to prove that there beliefs are valid just for the gratification of another person. So if the Atheist is the one demanding proof then the request that he prove his belief first is completely valid. As that belief is basically " I don't believe God exists" then some proof is required in the spirit of fairness of debate.
However if you are a believer attempting to convert someone then "prove God doesn't exist" is a pretty damn weak argument to try to convince someone to switch teams.I don't know if I completely agree with this...
The reason many don't believe in a god of any sort is because they don't have supporting proof. I don't know i would say those who don't believe are non-believers because they have proof of non-existance, but rather a lack of proof of existance and until sufficient proof can be found, they will continue to be non-believers.
At least this is my take on the majority of non-believers.The argument is invalid. Once you provide proof, its no longer belief, its knowledge. You can always use the old "Rocking Chair" analogy:
I look at a rocking chair.
I believe it will support my weight.
I sit down, and it holds me up.
I no longer believe the chair will support me, I now know it will.
Believers will never "need" proof, that's why they are "believers".
Non-belief comes from either one of two things: a lack of understanding of the general concept, or a stronger belief in something else. The vast majority of Atheists I have met fall into the second category. It has very little to do with the "lack of proof" that there is a God, and more to do with their belief that God doesn't exist.
And the reason they hold a belief that God doesn't exist??? Lack of evidence or proof...
Even with your rocking chair...sure it held you the first time, will it hold you the second time... prior experience says yes it will because you believe you know from prior evidence or proof (sitting in it) that it does... but has anything change since you sat in it last? maybe it won't hold you this time...You are following a believe that it will hold based on previous experiences until you actually sit and prove that it holds and then you have knowledge until you stand back up...Same with belief in God...Evidence or proof might change your belief of if God exists or not...But until you die or actually see/meet God face to face one cannot have true knowledge...only a belief based on the proof or evidence...
Knowledge can only be based on something that never changes...And there is nothing that I can think of that never changes.
Our "knowledge" is only as good as the current situation. And with each new day something changes...Like it or not, our knowledge is nothing more than a firm "belief" in the current evidence as we know it...And last I checked we don't have all the answers and until such time and changes no longer occur...well...You know D.S. one day we will need to grab a six-pack and a couch and have a long conversation
Our knowledge is much more than a "belief" Scientific discoveries are made by people who are grindingly meticulous. They spend years, sometimes their entire lives pursuing a single goal, and even after they find what they are looking for, even after they make their discovery every other scientist in the field tries to prove them wrong. Science lives under that kind of scrutiny and survives because what is is testable.
God exists everywhere else. If science doesn't know something, people say God is responsible, and if science says something that flies in the face of something people think God said, then those believers cry "How do you know? That's just a theory."
Yeah.. "theories" that has withstood the best minds in the world trying to disprove them, sometimes for decades.
I'll go with those theories, thank you. It's God that has to prove himself, not we that have to disprove him.Who said anything about God...??
Believing in God is choice...usually made by one, based on the evidence they hold...
And as I said before, we base our "knowledge" on what we currently have strong supporting evidence for...If/when something changes, then our knowledge is no longer accurate and must change with the new evidence. So until such time as we know everything or nothing changes our knowledge is nothing more than a strong belief in the evidence we currently hold as factual.DoubleScorpion: I use God only for comparison. It's just that people usually have a strange notion about how robust human knowledge actually is. When you say "nothing more than a strong belief" I am incredulous. That is wrong. Years of study and a lifetime of counter-study by very smart people who are looking for flaws. To survive that any theory has to have more than a "strong belief" behind it.
Do we find new evidence for things? We didn't know about the Atom until recent years (within the last 100 years or so).
As of right now, based on the evidence we have, we only have knowledge of that evidences. If something changes or we find something new, our old knowledge is out and we gain new...Which is the reason I use the wording of "strong belief"...because based on what we currently know or can prove "these are the facts", but that can change and will change as we gain new insights...
For things that don't change(or we think don't/can't)...let's say gravity...we have knowledge correct?...but what happens to gravity if the poles switch, another planet gets to close, or who knows...can we say for sure that we have absolute knowledge of gravity?We didn't know about the atom until recently (relatively speaking) but since the discovery of the atom, there has been no discovery that successfully disputes the existence of atoms. What we DO find is more information that better clarifies the behavior and properties of atoms, and the discovery of atoms was not a whim from someone who said "You know what?" It was from evidence that was found that not only fit all the observable data at the time, but also since 1803 no scientist (including modern day scientists with their cutting edge equipment) has ever been able to find anything that says that atoms do not exist, or that some other idea fits the observable facts better than atoms do.
That is not "just a theory" That is a Theory that stands up to the eager scrutiny of hundreds, perhaps thousands of scientists who would love to make the kind of a mark in their field that disproving a fundamental of science would create.
So, yeah... "we have knowledge" but it's a lot more than you make it out to be. In biology, people have bet their very lives that the knowledge we have discovered is the truth and we are rewarded with longer, healthier lifespans and the virtual eradication of some very terrible diseases. The fundamental laws of the universe are being described with just as much care and attention.
Science changes most of the time with a refinement of already existing theories. It is very rare when something comes along that completely rewrites text books. This is because things don't get into the text books without extremely rigorous testing. It has nothing to do with belief. It has to do with demonstrated evidence. Knowledge is NOT belief. Knowledge is testable. Belief is not.I would agree with everything you have said...I am not disputing the facts as we now know them...
I only have a different thought on one thing you mentioned...
Facts are testable, both Knowledge and Beliefs are disputable or somewhat disputable(in my opinion).
To me, Beliefs are nothing more that "knowledge without facts", strong beliefs are "knowledge with supporting evidence/facts" and knowledge (Tested proven facts) is only as accurate as the current facts we have...As you said...We now know about atoms...But what we know about atoms changes almost daily...And as you said, it might not change the atom itself, but clarifies what we know about them.
The question should be, "Prove that it is impossible that God cannot exist".
Now common. That doesn't leave room for argument or debate at all.
Be fair now.What is the definition of God? God means different things to different people. God could be just some energy or something.
Is it impossible that the world was intelligently designed by a higher power? In fact, knowing DNA, it seems impossible that it wasn't.
So the question could be posed to you is how DNA came to be without a higher power?So DNA just assembled itself? You need to prove that.
If I put the chemicals needed to create life; Carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and some others into a beaker (an experiment that was already done), said chemicals will arrange in certain patterns. Their called Amino acids "the building blocks of life".
But how does it arrange itself in a certain pattern so that each individual has completely unique DNA?
Take for example a computer program. It is obvious that codes had to be programmed in order for a program to work.
Quotes from website:
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 … esign.aspx
n 1953, when Watson and Crick, founder of the helix of DNA, elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery. The structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions—the information—for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive.
Francis Crick later developed this idea with his famous "sequence hypothesis,” according to which the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. Just as English letters may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement, so too do certain sequences of chemical bases along the spine of a DNA molecule convey precise instructions for building proteins. The arrangement of the chemical characters determines the function of the sequence as a whole. Thus, the DNA molecule has the same property of “sequence specificity” that characterizes codes and language. As Richard Dawkins has acknowledged, "the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like." As Bill Gates has noted, “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created.”
After the early 1960s, further discoveries made clear that the digital information in DNA and RNA is only part of a complex information processing system—an advanced form of nanotechnology that both mirrors and exceeds our own in its complexity, design logic and information storage density.
Where did the digital information in the cell come from? And how did the cell’s complex information processing system arise? Today these questions lie at the heart of origin-of-life research. Clearly, the informational features of the cell at least appear designed. And to date, no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information needed to build the first living cell. Why? There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone. And the information in DNA has also been shown to defy explanation by reference to the laws of chemistry. Saying otherwise would be like saying that a newspaper headline might arise as the result of the chemical attraction between ink and paper. Clearly, “something else” is at work.
As for scientists making DNA, it just proves that an intelligent being, like humans, guided that process. I don't think they put amino acids, etc, and watched it form into DNA.
And there is another question: How did consciousness come to being?You got me.
Chemical responses, which attest to most of our experiences. For every experience (and this has been proven) there's a genetic alteration of sorts.
I can't explain why because I'm not a biologist or a professor of natural science and physics.
So what can I say?I am struck by your humility. That's a rare thing. Anyway, studies suggest that the brain reacts to our mental thoughts instead of the other way round. That could explain how people could experience consciousness while brain dead as in the case of Near Death Experiences.
Just because the brain is putting out electrical signals, doesn't mean it's aware. Human functions are not a conscious effort, while their controlled by the brain, the body may need additional support. Hence medical equipment, designed to keep those functions active.
Stacey Schivo or whatever her name was. Her brain had shrunk to a size smaller than a walnut and had to rely on machines and people for her most basic functions. This a case of a brain being completely unaware of itself.
Claire Evans: You're using a classic argument, which basically goes like this: "You don't know, so it MUST be God doing it."
Science has a very good track record for uncovering how the universe works. Religion doesn't. It really is that simple. Science makes a discovery, religion refuses to believe it, science proves it, and then religion eventually comes around and decides that science was right in the first place. Religion never makes a previously unknown discovery because everything is already considered "discovered" All they do is fight to hold on to their "discoveries" when science comes by and shows them to be wrong.
So it's not a "faith" per se that I have in science. It is a well-founded trust that they will eventually discover the answers to any questions you can pose about the nature of the universe. Religion is not a search for truth. It is a destination that they expect science to arrive at eventually. I do not believe that will happen however, because as the scientific discoveries pile up, we get further and further away from God.Actually, people know that DNA is so complex to assemble itself. It has to be an intelligent designer. It doesn't necessarily mean, for argument's sake, that it is a specific God we know about us.
People could argue that scientists discover how an intelligent designer created something when they make discoveries. Science and God don't have to be mutually exclusive.
And science is not even close to disproving God's existence. In fact, people are drifting away from Darwin's theory of evolution in favour of intelligent design, most notably Richard Dawkins of all people.Who are these "people" who know this?
Again, what "people are you referring to?
I have to have a link to this outrageous claim, Claire. Preferably not from some wacko nut job religious site. A direct quote will do nicely.
http://cnsnews.com/node/50821
http://www.ucg.org/science/dna-tiny-cod … evolution/
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/ca … 36451.html
See links.
"Indeed so controversial has the theory of evolution now become that the famous philosopher Anthony Flew, who for many decades flew the flag for atheism, recently declared himself a believer in, well, something. In Feb 2008 (about 7 years after rumours of his 'conversion' first surfaced) he said at interview:
FLEW: I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I don’t think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.
HABERMAS: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology? [teleology is the philosophical study of design in nature]
FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that... the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."
Now Dawkins is saying that DNA is an indicator that there may have been a designer.
"BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?
DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."
You see, it's getting harder to believe that DNA is by chance.
Here's it from Dawkins' own mouth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8Claire Evans: It's interesting how all your links are from religious organizations such as the Discovery Institute or the media. Your only scientist is Richard Dawkins, explaining how an advanced race might engineer another, but no extrapolation on the relative chances that this has been done to us.
DNA is NOT by chance, you are correct. The environmental and biological forces at work here are not random, but they are not directed by an intelligence either. The universe continues to behave as if it has no intelligence guiding it, and that includes evolution.
As to the clip you showed of Ben Stein interviewing Richard Dawkins, that was from a widely discredited program called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, itself seeking (and failing) to discredit Evolution. Dawkins is explaining how a sufficiently advanced race might engineer another race, and seems to think that if that had happened, this artificial process would leave behind a "signature"
We find no such signatures in the "design" of humans or any other life form on this planet, at least nothing that unequivocally points to an intelligence.
Also, Ben Stein is a moron.
So these are the people who "know" DNA is too complex to assemble itself?
Actually, Dawkins does not believe in intelligent design. He was asked by Ben Stein under what circumstances could intelligent design exist.
It is on YouTube.That's not true. He is entertaining the idea it is true because of...
"Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."
So because of the fact that the details of biochemistry are so complex, intelligent design has to be considered and those are the circumstances that intelligent design could exist.
Also, he says intelligent design is a possibility. He could have said, "There are no circumstances that exist that could ever allude to intelligent design."No, he has decided to have an open mind. He did not say...it does exist...which he could have...
see these words
"it could"
"um it's possible"
"and I suppose it's possible"
I watched the video too. But I didn't want to believe what wasn't said.I didn't say he said it does exist. He has decided to play it safe by mumbling those words you just quoted. I think it is obvious that he thinks that the microbiology is so complex that a signature must be found. He said, you could find...but that is why of playing safe rather than make a direct admission.
Why would he entertain the idea of intelligent design? Because it's obvious when you see the complexity of life. It's for this very reason that Dawkins is no longer an atheist but an agnostic.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … ostic.html
DNA is what made atheist Anthony Flew a theist. That is why DNA is called the Blueprint of Life:
A blueprint is a type of paper-based reproduction usually of a technical drawing, documenting an architecture or an engineering design. More generally, the term "blueprint" has come to be used to refer to any detailed plan.
What Dawkins said was that genetic engineering, even the creation of life is possible, which any biologist would also tell you is possible. He did NOT say that it has been done to this planet. Those are two entirely different ideas. There is currently no evidence which hints at any kind of intelligence behind either the creation or the development of life on this planet. Your argument is called "Irreducible Complexity" which is a flawed argument. As I said before it declares that since you can't figure it out, then it MUST have been some form of intelligent agent that created and is responsible for the development of life on this planet. The only other evidence you bring out is from religious people, philosophers and others with no scientific backgrounds.
Just chill out!
Ancient texts suggest aliens genetically modified us on earth and where there is a creation of life, there is a creator. How do you believe DNA came into being? I also did not say he said it was done.
Let us look at this again:
"And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."
He is obviously implying that the details of biochemistry are are complex, you could think there was a designer behind it.
I believe in intelligent design because it is just so ludicrous to believe that everything just assembled itself by chance and consciousness just evolved from nothing.
Clair Evans: These "suggestions" from ancient texts are nothing more than speculation and they do not fit the observable evidence.
You believe in intelligent design because YOU think it is "so ludicrous" to believe that everything just assembled by chance.
Point of fact, evolution is NOT random chance, and consciousness didn't come from nothing. That is a classic error that people who don't understand science fall into. There is however, no reason to go from random chance to intelligent design. The lack of one does not automatically make the other true.
I believe that DNA came into being the way evolution predicts; that it was a gradual accumulation of mutations that were edited by the environment. There is no reason for me to believe otherwise. There is no part of DNA that is inconsistent with evolution.The theory of evolution came from nothing. At least nothing they know yet. How does evolution predict if the origins are not known? Or is the big bang not where we started to evolve from?
Evolution is a theory of how things change. It is not tasked with explaining how the universe, or even life, began. That would be like saying the germ theory of disease is wrong because it does not explain how bacteria are created.
Ok so we are talking evolution on earth. Does it predict change or describe or both?
So therefore the theory of evolution being proven right does not disprove intelligent design because evolution could be a mechanism for intelligent design.
Can you comment on this?
"It was here, in tracing the vertical evolutionary record contained in the human and the other analyzed genomes, that the scientists ran into an enigma.
The head-scratching discovery by the public consortium, as Science termed it, was that the human genome contains 223 genes that do not have the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree.
How did Humankind acquire such a bunch of enigmatic genes?
In the evolutionary progression from bacteria to invertebrates (such as the lineages of yeast, worms, flies or mustard weed which have been deciphered) to vertebrates (mice, chimpanzees) and finally modern humans, these 223 genes are completely missing in the invertebrate phase. Therefore, the scientists can explain their presence in the human genome by a rather recent (in evolutionary time scales) probable horizontal transfer from bacteria.
In other words: At a relatively recent time as Evolution goes, modern humans acquired an extra 223 genes not through gradual evolution, not vertically on the Tree of Life, but horizontally, as a sideways insertion of genetic material from bacteria"
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc … _adn08.htm
Scientist Fred Hoyle thinks so, too.
Prove it to me that DNA assembled itself.
Oh, so how did it all begin? Explain the primordial soup business. So how did consciousness come to being?
.
So you just believe? This is not a fact? First of all, you have to prove to me how DNA was formed without any sort of guidance. Give me an article that postulates this and has been proven. Can you prove to me evolution was not planned by an intelligent designer? How did the human body evolve from a single cell? In order for me to believe you, you need to prove every step that lead to the complexity of the cell.
Claire Evans: People don't KNOW that at all. There's nothing inherent about complexity that links to a designer. You are just saying that you can't think of anything that would create such complexity without an intelligence behind it, but that is not evidence of an intelligence behind DNA. It is only a statement that you don't know anything else that could be responsible.
Science has come up with a hypothesis that says that environment, energy and time are all that is necessary to create something as complex as DNA. There are explanations. Any biologist will explain it to you. If you say "That can't happen" then you have to come up with a better explanation than some kind of super-powered entity.
Science doesn't "Disprove" anything. That's not what scientists do. They provide an explanation that fits the available facts better than any other explanation. That is all... no more... no less. It's okay for you not to believe in those explanations or accept them, but if you want to come into the world of science and use their own rules against them (which you are doing) then you better understand those rules at least as well as the people you are claiming are wrong.
You don't. Your "explanation" for DNA being too complex to have occurred without a designer shows it very clearly.
And for the record; People aren't drifting away from Dawkins and his theories. Far from it. Religion in general is losing it's flock. More people than ever before are declaring themselves not affiliated with any church or outright Atheists. "Non-religious" is the fastest growing category in America.Or also known as "matching wits with the witless."
Why is so much of DNA completely "junk" coding then? Surely if someone designed it then 95 percent of it wouldn't have absolutely no function at all. The structure of DNA is more of an argument for evolution than anything. Likely that "junk" was needed at some point in evolution and now... like the appendix... it has no purpose.
The "junk" was meant for the "trunk" in some species of early man, Melissa.
Seriously though, some believers think man was created perfectly by their god, simply because they cannot see the flaws inherent in the human body. This would seem to indicate God made a few mistakes with his work. Not acceptable at all from the viewpoint of fundamentalists.
While I am a believer I don't get the "I'm gonna use science to prove God" thing. It never works.
I am quite happy to make the separation between my belief in the big guy and the realities of science. I am also satisfied with the knowledge that if they go together somehow I'll be damned if I know how.
Of course I don't really care how we got here enough to be offended by opinions either way. If my infinite great-grandmother looked more like a chimp than a human why the hell do I care? I've got enough to deal with with the family that is currently alive and only marginally human now.This is why many of us nonbelievers respect your opinion, Melissa. If I were ever to become a believer, then you would be my role model on how to act when discussing religion on these forums.
I said "if"!
That's the whole problem with the "intelligent design" idea in the first place. It doesn't take a really educated biologist to imagine ways in which the processes in the human body are flawed and sometimes not needed (appendix anyone?) if a so-called intelligent being was out to create humans from the ground up, it would be more elegant and much better constructed for the environment it is in. Considering how badly the human body is actually put together it makes more sense to consider it was created by environmental process rather than a fairly idiotic entity. The idea of "intelligent design" is actually of "non-intelligent design" because any reasonably intelligent designer would have had a better design, especially a supposedly perfect creator.
I think the human body is brilliantly put together perceived flaws and all. A thing of beauty. I marvel at the intricacies and complexities of the processes that enable a body to do what it does. The uniqueness of each external construction that results in no two bodies being exactly the same.
Given that everything is made up of energy, I would say energy is quite intelligent.
Perfect is an ideal that is born from discontent when we do not accept what is.But energy in itself cannot be an intelligent designer.
Well, because energy has to have a conscious mind to design a body. Energy couldn't create a computer program. It couldn't do this, either:
Wind, rain or sand erosion? I mean, those have the potential to do work which is the definition of energy.Perhaps not consciousness as we know it to be no. Yet, when we consider that a lot of unconsciousness is responsible for many of our bodily functions that we are not aware of, it might seem less outrageous. Certain organs renew themselves every so often, cells duplicate etc etc without our conscious awareness. We are energy in the form of a body so it is the energy that inherently knows how to do what it does with no help from us.
As energy we interact with other energies everyday. Artists use energy in different forms to create their masterpieces. So they are energy interacting with other energy to create different energy forms. The cycles of nature are energy, interacting with energy of the world and universe to give us seasons without no help from us. This indicates that energy has intelligence.
The body badly put together?? I can just imagine environmental processes making the heart beat, kidneys to filter waste, bones putting together in a way we can walk and hold our internal organs in place and code DNA into our cells.
There are flaws in the human body, however, and it appears to me that it could be due to genetic manipulations by sophisticated beings. Ancient texts say that aliens visited the earth and genetically modified man in their own image to make them more compliant with them. It's even said that some of these experiments went horribly wrong. This theory is more plausible than environmental processes being responsible for assembling the complex human body.
Here's an explanation for junk DNA.
"A group of researchers working at the Human Genome Project will be announcing soon that they made an astonishing scientific discovery: They believe so-called non-coding sequences (97%) in human DNA is no less than genetic code of an unknown extraterrestrial life form."
http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/dna4a.html
It is believed that the "junk" DNA will allow us to access a higher consciousness, a Christ consciousness. So the "junk" DNA is just dormant.
http://hiddenlighthouse.wordpress.com/
DNA is just too complex for evolution to give DNA a signature. Try and put your computer on and expect it to access a program without programming it first.That article was written by an unknown author. There are quotes in it that have no attribution to them, and the conclusions of this unknown author have no citations to back them up.
This is what you call "evidence"? Or maybe you meant the video by Deepak Chopra? Seriously?Which article? The first one? As I was pointing out to Melissa, the Nobel Prize winner for the discovery of the double helix of the DNA actually believed this:
"Dr. Francis Crick was one of the two scientists who discovered the structure of DNA during the 1950s. Certainly an important discovery in the history of science, this came after lengthy research and a great pooling of information and expertise. Crick won the Nobel Prize for his work. Dr. Crick applied the same rigorous disciplinary standards to his Extraterrestrial origins findings.
In his book Life Itself, Dr. Crick said that creatures from another solar system brought the seeds necessary for life to lifeless planets and, thanks to their kind intervention, life began here.
Nobel Laureate Dr. Crick’s work, is consistent with the apparent findings of “Professor Sam Chang” of the Human Genome Project, who has been credited for seeking to release scientific findings concerning evidence of Extraterrestrial contact in Human DNA.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc … _adn08.htm
"In the 1990s, a team of Russian linguists lead by Dr. Peter Gariaev discovered that the genetic code in 'junk' (or 'potential') DNA—which accounts for a whopping 97-8% of our overall genome—follows uniform grammar and usage rules virtually identical to those of human language. It turns out that the 'junk' was laden with the intimations of intelligence, purpose and meaning. This ground-breaking research followed J. Delrow's discovery in 1990 that the four nucleotides of DNA inherently form fractal structures closely related to human speech patterns.[1] Thus, human language emerged from the grammatical and syntactical structures within our very own DNA—the massive 'junk' portion, no less!"
During 1984-5, Gariaev made a startling discovery. He found that an in vitro DNA sample in a test tube had the ability to attract and harness coherent laser light, causing it to spiral along the DNA helix. This alone was unexpected, but it wasn?t all. After removing the DNA sample the photons continued to spiral as if the DNA was still there. This was dubbed the 'DNA Phantom.' Some 'new' field structure had been excited from the vacuum and was entraining the light even in the absence of the DNA. This effect has been observed to last for up to a month. Even after blowing the phantom away with gaseous nitrogen, it returns in 5-8 minutes. Gariaev et al. also remark that “sound waves radiated by the DNA molecules were registered in these experiments.” [5]
"Our DNA harnesses both sound and light in its moment-by-moment operations, but more than this, it 'punches holes' in space-time, opening a window to time-space/the time domain: “…our DNA can cause [patterns of disturbance] in the vacuum, thus producing magnetized wormholes!...These are tunnel connections between entirely different areas in the universe through which information can be transmitted outside of space and time. The DNA attracts these bits of information and passes them on to our consciousness.”[6] Most of us know this process as intuition or psychic insight."
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/co … ?id=215393
So what if this "junk" DNA could be used to access a new consciousness? New Agers believe that will access a Christ consciousness.
Look at this for instance:
http://www.2012.com.au/DNA_upgrades.html
ROFLMAO!
Wait... I'm good now...
*Falls over*
Guess not.Deleted
I'd bet you if I reported her, she'd get banned.
Deleted
Well, I won't. I only report on bullying and obscenities or blasphemy.
I don't think blasphemy is against the TOS
Or...once again... there would be about 10 posters left.
I reported Mark for blasphemy and haven't seen him in a while.
- That's a good one. Reported for blasphemy. Maybe the Holy Spirit is one of the moderators. That could explain why we aren't able to identify the party responsible for the banning.
We should start a thread. Is the question ' Do Hub Pages Moderators Exist' logical?I think Mark saying God raped Mary is unacceptable. If you e-mail the moderators, they will direct you to the offending comment.
I would be very uncomfortable with the idea of someone being banned for that comment. Is it offensive to your sensibilities? Of course. Is it casting that part of the story in the worst possible light? Of course. However; think about the story Claire. If you omit the encounter with the angel Gabriel prior to conception (which most retellings do); that isn't such an outlandish take on the events.
If you cry foul every time you've allowed your sensibilities to be offended, people will see it as insecurity. It isn't your job (or anyone else's for that matter) to defend the name of God against foolish interpretations. The value of the message resides solely in what effect it has on the heart.
The funny thing is, except for the devout atheist who refuses to think about it, I think everyone uses the text to ponder the cosmic order. We determine what conclusions we arrive at as a sort of truth (whether we search for consensus or not) and step on our individual soap boxes to discuss it. I think we all miss more of the point than we get.
If we ever come to the point where the soap boxes are put into permanent retirement and we embrace the good we can discern within the views of others, without demanding that only we know the correct path...we'll take a great step toward reconciling 'heaven and earth'.
I know you have a deep seated belief in Satan, and I think 'Satan' is at the root of everything within us that fights against love and acceptance of our fellow man. 'Satan' is why you reported an opposing view instead of struggling to understand where it was coming from and the good that could be found at the core of that view.Wow...you've let yourself down badly. You are not worthy of respect if you think it is okay that obscene comments like that were made. I'm telling you, if someone made a comment about you being raped, you wouldn't be happy.
Ask yourself why Motown didn't find it acceptable.
Actually, I don't. I've used the report button once for obscenity and after I was banned, I used it twice to test the moderators' consistency.
There are ways of articulating things and saying God raped Mary with the sole purpose to rile me up and upset me is unacceptable. He made no attempt at being constructive.
I will not accept people who do bad things. LMAO! Satan is what made me report someone for an OPPOSING view? If someone said, "Jesus is not the son of God", I don't go say, "Blasphemy!" and report it. If you cannot see why I thought it was appropriate to report it, then I can't help you, sorry.
We should consider whether to continue this or not because we could be accused of petty bickering which can lead up to a ban.You appear to be bickering, attempting to insult and attempting to belittle. I use the word attempting because, although I would like to give you room to think you've made a valid point I can't see one.
I, on the other hand, was merely attempting to point out the childish origins of the desire to report someone you disagree with. But, no Claire. I wouldn't be upset if someone said I had been raped. If the statement were untrue, I'd ask what led them to that conclusion. If true, I couldn't very well change the fact. Why would it upset me if someone pointed it out?
I know why you find the comment unacceptable. But, you chose to engage in conversation on a site where you know there is controversy. If you don't want to deal with opposing views....why are you here?"Emile:
That's a good one. Reported for blasphemy. Maybe the Holy Spirit is one of the moderators. That could explain why we aren't able to identify the party responsible for the banning.
We should start a thread. Is the question ' Do Hub Pages Moderators Exist' logical?"
You can't tell me bickering wouldn't ensue from this insult?That was a joke. What would we bicker about? We all know Hub Page moderators are real. Don't we?
Or, in your opinion, was I insulting the Holy Spirit by suggesting it was among them?No, you were insulting the moderators by telling the holy s@*t er! ghost was among them.
Do you not know by now how precious the Holy Spirit is to me? Why must you people twist the knife in my heart? You, too, would defend someone you love. I responded to you because you are at least better than Jomine who I will not give the pleasure of addressing because of the level he stoops to.
This is the reason why bickering between believers and non believers will continue to the end of time. Some atheists will not respect Christian beliefs and some Christians will not respect the right for people to be non believers.Claire, you should also know that other beliefs are just as precious to those who hold them. If you can't bring yourself to honestly evaluate how your beliefs may offend the beliefs of others....is it fair to ask for special consideration for your own beliefs? Beyond the courtesies you are willing to offer to others?
As if it is a pleasure to be addressed by you!
If I want to be addressed by persons who says the whole world is conspiring against them, I just can go to the ward in my hospital.
For laughing at conspiracy theories? Honey if we got banned for that there would be none of us left... except those who post them...
But... once again... button is bottom right.Melissa, it's not a conspiracy theory! Are you saying the discoverer of the double helix of DNA is a conspiracy theorist? Can you not entertain the idea other being from other planets interrupted natural evolution?
Let's take what these people say about all this:
According to a video tape made by a former C.I.A. agent, John Lear, based upon what he said he witnessed from military agents with top secret security clearances, there are about 70 different extraterrestrial civilizations that have been monitoring the Earth. Based on interviews by civilian UFO researchers from civilian professional UFO research organizations there have been people reporting abductions by beings from at least 40 other planets, although the negative experiences seem to be confined to about 6 prominent planets in both studies. The other reported beamed-up or taken-up experiences and land encounters have involved entities either friendly or neutral who are studying us much like our own scientists study primitive natives in jungles. There have been reported contacts with beings from 4 other planets in our own solar system, including a transparent green etherical energy formation being allegedly from Saturn and a tall, physical, pure white humanoid claiming to be from Uranus. The beings claiming to be from Mars and Venus are human in appearance yet are based in spaceports enclosed in protective force-fields on those worlds and they represent colonization's from other star systems rather than native indigenous life.
http://www.think-aboutit.com/aliens/seventy.htm
I was being sarcastic when I said, "I bet they'd ban her if I reported her". I'm rather ticked off when the moderators for banning people for silly things.
So of course I wouldn't report you for that.
Well, you can go laugh at Francis Crick, the one who discovered the DNA double helix, for believing the same thing I do:
"Exo-scientists are critically inspired by the work of Dr. Francis Crick. In his book Life Itself: Its Origins and Nature (1981), Crick — a Nobel prize-winner and the co-founder of the shape of the DNA molecule — claimed an advanced civilisation transported the seeds of life to Earth in a spacecraft. Nobel laureate Dr. Francis Crick who posits an extraterrestrial origin for life on Earth, is not alone in this viewpoint within the scientific community. The same year that Life Itself was published (1981), Sir Fred Hoyle authored Life from Space, in which he took essentially the same position. In fact, in an article that year in Nature, he wrote:
“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate mater is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it…. It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” (Hoyle: 1981, 294:148)."
He wasn't particularly popular for saying it how it is. I'll tell you this much, scientists are reluctant to digress from what is accepted by mainstream scientists. It could mean the end of their careers.
People laugh out of ignorance. They really do. They are conditioned from young to believe in a certain way and when something digresses from what they are conditioned not to believe, they laugh. It's called keeping the sheep in line and that is why the world is in such a deceptive mess.
I just can't accept that life and our consciousness just came about by some accident and some process that doesn't even go by a plan.
So go learn about these things. Here's something for you:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc … _adn08.htm
Depends on whether or not this higher power if you will is the substance within all things both seen and unseen. If that's what you are pointing to then I agree.
That's New Age thinking. It's quite startling how prevalent this sort of thinking is. Not saying you are can't have this opinion but I couldn't help but notice.
God as I know Him is a separate entity from us for if a higher power was in all of us, we'd be on par with Jesus.
If we had this higher power in us it doesn't say much for this higher power considering just how evil humanity is. God and Satan as higher powers influence us but are not part of us.It seems you have missed the whole point of Ephesians when it said God is above all, through all, and in you all.
If you do not know the God within then what God do you know?
Jesus spent a lot of time in the desert fighting the internal battle that most of us do. He wasn't born perfect although some like to believe that.Had to go look for it..Ephesians 4:6
There are many more passages throughout the bible that point to the God within.
4:10 points to all things.Okay, I have already addressed "Christ being within us" part here on another forum:
Many modern archaeological discoveries have validated the historical accuracy
of the Bible and have helped Bible scholars understand the meaning of certain ancient words ..... In Koine Greek, the expression entos humon (literally, 'inside of you') often meant 'within reach'. Thus Jesus' statement is Luke 17:21 could mean 'The kingdom is within reach.'" (Philip W Comfort, p 273 The Origin of the Bible).
So it more means that the union of the word of God among them is within them all.
Paul was specifically writing to the Ephesian Church and did not mean that God was among all of mankind. Evil would not survive.Inside of you is inside of you. Within reach is far from the supposed literal meaning don't you think?
When there is tea inside a cup it is not beside the cup or within reach of the cup its inside. If I say look at the tea inside the cup where would you look?
The kingdom is inside of you. You may of course keep looking where ever you want.
I love this comment. I've been thinking about part of that, off and on, as I read the comments here. I know Jesus said the kingdom of God is within. It seems to me that many of the combative religious posts would point to the fact that they are fighting against a part of the kingdom they claim to be a part of by not loving others as much as they believe they love their god.
I am not sure why so many people miss that? Perhaps it's too simple? A complex world might need complex answers some might think? Yet Jesus did say, the simple will confound the wise. It's kinda looking that way.
If we find even a fraction of this kingdom within loving others no matter what they do would be less of a problem.I think people miss it simply because it is the most difficult thing to accept. It's easy to love a God you get to make up as you go. One outside of this world waiting to 'save' you from all of the frustrations of living. To accept he is in all things requires acceptance of all things on some level. Religion would never teach tolerance.
Yes agree. Religion doesn't appear to no. Yet it is what is advocated throughout the bible. So I wonder if it is more the leaders who do not teach it. Not all but some.
Perhaps, if one subscribes to the idea that God is outside of this world and will save you from lifes trials etc, that is why many get highly disillusioned when life does not go as they had expected and walk away from Religion.I think you've hit the nail on the head. It appears, among the devout on both ends of the spectrum, they don't read and think. They read and accept how another put it all together. They aren't attempting to find God, but searching for easy fixes to their problems externally. They live in denial of the entire point of the gospels, as I saw it. To search within. If God exists, I would think he is as much a part of reality as we are. His manifestation on this plane of existence is the core of good within all of us.
If we find a way to embrace reality unreservedly, within ourselves and without, we take a step toward God. Whether we choose to calll it that, or not.Agreed it is mostly the leaders not teaching -because they, themselves, were not taught. They were taught doctrine and learned to preach watching their elder pastors. Thus the emphasis put outside and liberation from the external, using the external because even having the words like spirit or faith, they don't understand what they truly are -were designed for. It is more than parody. I believe a very similar analogy was Y`shua casting out unclean using unclean. A cliche like "How can you clean a dirty house with a dirty rag."
James.Yes The blind leading the blind comes to mind too. Where are they being led to? Only the one at the lead knows or rather guesses. If he/she don't know then it will be a very long journey.
It is logical, because it clearly shows the limitations of any attempt to put the question of God to rest. And, it helps bring to the forefront the reasons both parties are embroiled in the debate in the first place.
Just because both questions have been debated on the internet (ad nauseam) doesn't mean they are illogical. It means both far ends have a burning need to not only be right, but to consistently have their opinions validated. To show their super knowledge.I find those needs more intriguing than the question itself.Simply stated, both sides of the argument "prove G/god exists", lacks epistemological {even empirical and esoteric} evidence, beyond the dis/beliefs themselves. So, beliefs are argued, in most cases. From a logical perspective, the argument makes sense/is justified by disambiguating, fiber by fiber, the pro/con belief, in the hope of clarity and some common ground/resolution. The only "thing" that can dis/prove G/god exists/does not exist would be Him/It in some form or fashion, that both sides can view in practical resonance.
James
If someone claims they Know Something As Fact-Then They Should Be Able To Prove That Fact-Should They Not?
Now sure one can say I can't prove God as fact and the difference is I'm not trying to proof God I'm simply asking if you can accept this on faith.Why is it suprizing that I compliment a rational, logical stance?
- Motown2Chitownposted 11 years ago
0Or for pity's sake. Is it now against HP TOS to blaspheme? Christians, if you engage in debate about God with Atheists, they are going to disagree with you! Have you not yet figured this out? They will say things that to you are blasphemous, but to them are simply realistic.
Please do understand that God doesn't give you brownie points or greater power to save souls because you report blasphemers to HP moderator.
And, I'm fairly certain that if Mark got banned, it was not for blasphemy.I have heard quite a few Christians who are more than happy to try to censure people speaking their minds under the argument that Atheists speaking their mind is some kind of threat. To them, it is perfectly right to ban someone for blasphemy.
That is the core of persecution; being told that you can't speak your mind because people don't like it.Ok just my two cents...
The "persecution" thing is getting just a bit old. Hyperbole is a useful tool I guess but lets be realistic.
Being reported on a forum is NOT persecution. It is this...
THIS is persecution.
Please lets keep things in perspective.Persecution is persecution. Being unfairly punished or censured or imprisoned. Being reported on a forum for saying something unpopular is persecution. Putting Jews in concentration camps is persecution. The only difference is severity. Anyone jumping to the unfounded conclusion that I was comparing the two is not my responsibility.
Just so you realize that being told essentially to shut up on a message board ran by a private organization with no responsibility to grant free-speech is not really the same thing as being gassed in a concentration camp. Use of the word persecution to describe the former kinda takes away from the significance of the latter. Just saying.
MelissaBarrett: No. It doesn't. Look up the word. "Persecute: To oppress or harass with ill-treatment"
And for the record, a PUBLIC forum is assumed to consider free speech as sacred unless they say otherwise.No... it's not. Only the government is required to allow free speech. There is no other entity that is required to do such. No one except the government is required to let you express your opinion. Period.
Telling someone to shut up is not oppressing them... curiously it is actually an exercise in free speech as it is just as much their right to tell you to shut up as it is for you to speak. America is great like that.
Additionally it is also no harassment as harassment implies that it is one sided. If you are speaking to someone and they tell you to shut up then you are participating in the conversation by free choice and therefore harassment doesn't apply.
So no you aren't being persecuted... by definition or law. You can continue to compare yourself to those who are/have been persecuted but it's kinda an insult to them.True! Neither free speech nor equal treatment is guaranteed here. It is a business, not a democratic organization.
Not if you're a staffer and are asked tough questions!
Then it's a blessing! 
Did I say "required"? And there is no mention of government in the definition of "persecute"
It's perfectly okay to say "shut up" but it shows bad taste to report someone for speaking their mind, and it is persecution when HubPages honors such reports and bans them, and you are culpable if you are the one that reported them. You don't have to be a government to persecute someone. You simply have to have the power to persecute. Being a business means that you are not REQUIRED to honor free speech, but if you do ban free-speech then you are guilty of persecution. It's that simple and bringing the law into it doesn't change anything. The law only says what is legal, not what it right.Whatever you say... If you feel persecuted then have fun bearing that cross. I'll save my sympathy for those who are truly suffering though. Obviously you feel you are in the same boat... I happen to think you aren't even on the same ocean... but again whatever.
It's not what "I" say. I just said to look up the word. My responsibility to be understood ends with using language correctly. If you then misunderstand what I say, then I can't help you.
I have a B.A. in English and scored high enough on my verbal SAT's to meet Harvard's requirements. You want to argue with me on math and you'll win however if you want to argue the English language you might want to reconsider.
Anyway. It's not the definition of the word that is in question... it's the absurdity of your claims of meeting that definition. Like I said though... rock on dude. Fight the good fight. Bear your cross. All that happy horse crap.
I don't really understand the whole "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" thing but it's almost as entertaining to watch on an internet forum as it was when Monty Python did it.All I said was that banning someone on a public forum simply because you don't like what they say is persecution. If you dispute that, then you have to explain how the dictionary is wrong. If you don't dispute that, then it's all good.
...and it was "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"OK... the onus is on you then.
Prove that you are being oppressed.
Prove that you are being harassed with ill treatment.
Prove that it is HubPages that is doing it.
Prove that HP is a public forum... (You are going to need some legal help on THAT one... maybe a law dictionary?)
Please keep in mind that participation in the HP program is voluntary and you agreed beforehand to be bound by the terms of the TOS. Then explain to me how any "persecution" can occur voluntarily. Note... when you run out of options for this in Webster's Online Dictionary please consider picking up a Sociology or History text.
*edit... You are right about Dennis... I have failed MPaTHG and I am much ashamed.Never said I was being oppressed
Never said I was being harassed with ill treatment
However, hypothetically...
When you report someone to HubPages, HubPages decides if the complaint is valid.
HP is a public forum because they do not have an application process. You register, you can post.
If you prevent someone from speaking because of their personal opinions, you are persecuting them. If you are preventing someone from speaking because of "blasphemy" then you are engaging in "religious persecution" There is plenty of legal president for that. Whether this persecution is legal or just rude doesn't have a thing to do with it.
If person A reports another for "blasphemy" and HP honors that and bans person B, the HubPages is engaging in religious persecution and person A is culpable. Right or wrong, legal or illegal.
The same logic makes taking something that is not yours means that you are stealing, whether or not you are found out and whether or not it is illegal to do so or whether or not you are justified in the theft.Actually you gave the definition of persecution so you have to prove that someone is being oppressed or harassed will ill treatment. You have failed to meet that burden of proof. You certainly can't prove oppression by dictionary standards. You also fail the harassment by ill-treatment.
Also... the registration process IS an application process. In addition it is also an agreement to abide by HP's rules. Furthermore it is proof that it is NOT public as it is not the public governing the rules. It is a private entity.
There is no legal precedent of which I am aware that supports your "religious persecution" claim If you find one please post the link.
To imply that any private entity should be forced to listen to someone spout their opinion or they are persecuting them is ridiculous. If you want to see how ridiculous then please come to my apartment and demand that I listen to you. See how fast your definition of persecution ensues.Man. Are all your invitations that inviting? I bet you save a mint on your hors d'oeuvres budget. Not to mention the wear and tear avoided on your furniture.
*Smiles* I'm actually the kind that invites Mormons in and gives them Iced Tea. However saying "Can we talk to you about God?" is a little different than saying "You HAVE to listen to our opinion or you are persecuting us!"
The first gets you iced tea and conversation. The later gets you chased down four flights of stairs by curses.
See how that works?Sure, I see the difference. It seems to me, if you feel persecuted in this environment you probably feel persecuted when they close a register at the grocery store.
I was just joking with you anyway. I thought your post was hilarious.LMAO...
Generally when they close a register down at a store it IS persecution. Then again I have my kids with me so it is understandable. No one who isn't legally required to care for them should be forced to interact with them.
You really want to get specific??
Okay
Oppressed: Arousing disapproval; offensive.. A subjective term requiring the subject to object to it (ie, you can't tell me I'm being oppressed, but I can)
ill treatment: treatment ascribing an objectionable quality (ie if someone finds the way they are being treated objectionable, then it is "ill treatment")
If you want to be strictly literal, then if I say something that someone else finds objectionable, and they suppress my speech on the matter, I can define their behavior as "persecution" If I seek to overturn their suppression then THEY can define MY actions as "persecution" In short, disagreeing with me is fine, but censuring me because of something I say or a belief I hold is considered persecution, REGARDLESS of who does it or WHY, and it's up to ME to decide if it truly is persecution.
But that kind of devalues the term "persecution" as you claim I did, so the common usage of the term "persecution" is to define behavior from a position of authority that general society finds offensive, bigoted or sexist used to silence or imprison others.
Going back to our original point of contention (for instance HubPages banning someone because someone else finds that person to be speaking "Blasphemy") HubPages is guilty of religious persecution. It doesn't matter if they have legal standing to place the ban. It doesn't matter if they are a public forum or private business. It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong.
As to the matter of them actually BEING a public or private forum, I suppose legally, you are correct, but there is an expectation that any organization that is providing a service to the public for the purpose of discussion and that doesn't prohibit those of certain religious affiliations from joining to allow its members to disagree on the basis of religion without censure. At best, banning someone on the grounds of "Blasphemy" is extremely rude. Under some circumstances it can be legally actionable.
As for legality, that is an irrelevant tangent. I apologize for bringing it up, as I have been maintaining that legality doesn't matter.
I only intended to imply that any entity, private or public that wishes to foster political or religious debate (as HubPages has stated) should resist the urge to ban someone based on their religious or political views, and that includes blasphemy. If they do not, then they are engaging in religious (and maybe political) persecution. They have the power to ban people, and they have the legal right, but it is their choice how they use that power.Please link your definitions as I couldn't find yours anywhere online.
MW defines oppress as:
1: a archaic : suppress
b : to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority
2
: to burden spiritually or mentally : weigh heavily upon
Wiki defines as:
Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
Dictionary.com defines as:
1.
to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints; subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power: a people oppressed by totalitarianism.
2.
to lie heavily upon (the mind, a person, etc.): Care and sorrow oppressed them.
3.
to weigh down, as sleep or weariness does.
4.
Archaic . to put down; subdue or suppress.
5.
Archaic . to press upon or against; crush.
Clearly none of these conditions exist in a forum banning... unless you are using the archaic form meaning to suppress. There is no harsh exercise of authority or cruel and unjust imposition. Oppression clearly designates something of an extreme magnitude. HP simply doesn't have the authority to oppress anyone. Hence no persecution.
Harassment with ill treatment...
Firstly you need to be harassed...
MW defines as
a : exhaust, fatigue
b (1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct
2
: to worry and impede by repeated raids <harassed the enemy>
then you need ill-treatment...
MW defines as:
ill-treat (ltrt)
tr.v. ill-treat·ed, ill-treat·ing, ill-treats
To treat unkindly or harshly. See Synonyms at abuse.
So the question comes down to this softer definition of persecution because HP is surely not capable of the firmer one (oppression). Well I can see a possible argument for annoying persistently by banning but then banning would need to be considered essentially abuse by the definition of ill-treatment AND it would need to be persistent. That would mean that the forum poster would need to be banned repeatedly over time. So my conclusion there is by the softest possible definition it is vaguely arguable that the poster might be being persecuted. But... and it is a very big but... he or she would voluntarily be placing themselves in the situations to be persecuted. So that likely negates the argument of "persecution"
It also basically means that someone is being persecuted by being annoyed. Hell... I'm persecuted by my children all the time then. I don't think that's really how the word is supposed to be used.
Now that being said... I understand that you feel censoring by banning is persecution. That again is your opinion. You have to do some pretty significant semantic back-flips to make that opinion even marginally correct under the most lenient technical definition of the word persecution. Under the most common social usage of the word "persecution" don't expect to convince many people that being banned from a forum that you voluntarily go to and have no ownership in is remotely the same as the plight of those who are truly oppressed by those in power.
Now... about being banned for blasphemy... firstly it never happened so everything that follows afterwards is hypothetical. Moving on from there there is a whole other list of reasons why one person would view it as blasphemy but others would find it offensive for other reasons. In this case talking about rape on an internet forum can be seen as inappropriate for a hundred different reasons... none having to do with religion. Clair may have seen it as blasphemy and reported it as such but the moderators may have seen it as offensive to rape victims. So the banning (which never happened) would have been because of the offense to victims rather than God. So it wouldn't have been religious persecution by HP at all. It wouldn't have been persecution by Claire either because she doesn't have the power to oppress or would even repeated reporting be considered harassment because they personwould have no idea they were being reported so no annoyance.
To your next point... is it rude? Don't know but rude is a little different than persecution. For some reason saying the Nazi's were rude to the Jews just doesn't work. The words don't seem to be interchangeable.
Lastly... let's put this in true perspective of both right and wrong and legality...
A man stands on a box in Walmart screaming about how the Virgin Mary was raped by God. When he is removed and arrested (and he will be) is that religious persecution? When Walmart presses a restraining order against him (and they will) is that religious persecution? Why or why not?
Persecute: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/persecute
oppress: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/oppress
Your definitions and mine tend to differ semantically but what they have in common for the word persecute is: "Oppress or Harrass with ill treatment"
Oppress, as you define it is "subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power:" Being banned for something you say is a burdensom exercise of authority, be it just or unjust. You can't be oppressed unless the oppressor is in a position of authority over you. Children can't oppress you. The police can. Your parents can. HubPages can. even if the law allows it.
As to your last hypothetical situation, it should now be self-evident. WalMart is persecuting the man standing on the box screaming. The police are persecuting the screaming man on the box, and Walmart is further persecuting the screaming man on the box with a restraining order. And in my opinion, they are both entirely justified in doing so.
Are you not going to answer my questions?
Right, do you think it's acceptable for Mark to say God raped Mary?
If you go to the report button, it gives you a menu of options to select why you reported someone and there is an "other" option.
And it doesn't only fit into the category of blasphemy but obscenity also.Nope. I don't think it's acceptable, Claire. You would be well served, however, to remember that HP is a secular site. It is not here in any way to defend any set of beliefs or lack thereof.
In my correspondence with you on these forums, you have said many things with which I do not agree, and MANY things that I personally find blasphemous. I have never once reported you for any of those things because I'm a big girl and I know a)when to defend my point and b)when a conversation should simply be let go.
I don't generally engage you anymore, for instance, because I think that many of your beliefs are outrageous and inflammatory. I tend to stay away from conversations such as those.
When I engage, say, Mark - we have a line where we both realize it's best to agree to disagree and move on to other topics that we agree on that also deserve attention.
Thank you, you acknowledge that it is unacceptable and that is WHY I reported him, not for having opposing views. Apart from Mark, I have never reported anyone for blasphemy. As you can see, it goes hand in hand with obscenity. If someone said Allah like raping people, I'd report that, too. For heaven's sake, there needs to be a line drawn.
Interesting...what did I say that was so blasphemous?
It's only outrageous because you can't see fault with the Vatican. That's not my problem you can't see the obvious.
It doesn't say much for you if you respect for Mark. Do you? He has been very inflammatory in his lambasting Christianity.That's right, you should be the sole arbiter for everyone's views. You are blasphemous to science and intelligence in my opinion, but apparently, it isn't a banning offense.
Claire, I'm Catholic. I see much fault in the Church and even in the Vatican. But I don't agree with you that the Pope is Satan's representative on earth. Beh, big deal. So we don't agree. What bothers me the most about you is that you truly have yourself set up as THE representative Christian - and yet you veer from mainline Christian beliefs. In all honesty, I respect your perseverance but not all of your ideals. Just like I respect Mark's perseverance but not all of his ideals. And, I certainly respect your right to not respect me.
So, carry on with your witnessing...or whatever it is you do here. I have nothing to prove to you, darling, nor do I give a flying fig what you think of me.
Peace!Saying the Pope is Satanic is not blasphemy. Blasphemy is affronting God.
I did set myself up as the representative Christian? The only way I veer severely from mainstream Christian beliefs is regarding the Old Testament. Now go read the passages Jomine posted below and then think of Jesus. Do they reconcile? Of course not! That's because the Old Testament is corrupted mainly parts of it lifted from pagan beliefs and the occult. So all this, "I smite you this, I smite you that" from God in the Old Testament is not the God, the Father of Christ. It's easy to have an agenda and then say, "God said..."
Jeremiah 8:8:
New International Version (©1984)
"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?
The problem with most people in religion is that they don't think. And when someone does think they are accused of going against mainstream Christianity.Blasphemy! You are affronting God by declaring that He has allowed His word to become lies. His word, passed down through generations of His people has never been changed and is always true - He would not allow such a thing to happen.
You need to ban yourself.Change "most" to all, then you'll be cent percent accurate. Instead of 'don't think', if you put 'are delusional' then you'll be specifying those people who say the church and American leaders are satanists.
(Numbers 31:7-18
NLT) They attacked
Midian just as the
LORD had
commanded
Moses, and they
killed all the men. All five of the
Midianite kings –
Evi, Rekem, Zur,
Hur, and Reba –
died in the battle.
They also killed Balaam son of
Beor with the
sword. Then the
Israelite army
captured the
Midianite women and children and
seized their cattle
and flocks and all
their wealth as
plunder. They
burned all the towns and villages
where the
Midianites had
lived. After they
had gathered the
plunder and captives, both
people and
animals, they
brought them all
to Moses and
Eleazar the priest, and to the whole
community of
Israel, which was
camped on the
plains of Moab
beside the Jordan River, across from
Jericho. Moses, Eleazar
the priest, and all
the leaders of the
people went to
meet them outside
the camp. But Moses was furious
with all the
military
commanders who
had returned from
the battle. "Why have you let all the
women live?" he
demanded.
"These are the very
ones who
followed Balaam's advice and caused
the people of
Israel to rebel
against the LORD
at Mount Peor.
They are the ones who caused the
plague to strike
the LORD's
people. Now kill
all the boys and all
the women who have slept with a
man. Only the
young girls who
are virgins may
live; you may keep
them for yourselves.
Clearly, if your god is the bible god, he likes rape and murder, for he is commanding his people to do the same.
Clair Evans: "Is it acceptable to say that God raped Mary?"
If you read a story about two people and one of them had non-consentual sex with the other, but the author didn't use the word "rape" what would you call it? People are prosecuted by the law for rape under those circumstances, so is this one of those "It's not wrong if the big guy does it?" things?
I'dthink that 'prove God doesn't exist' is as valid as asking someone to prove that he does. However, it does seem unnecessay and obsolete. Proof of God whether in regrads to God's existence or non-existence is clearly not there to be found, at least right now. But as a rebuttle to those who disregard others beliefs as ignorance I would say it is valid. Athiests have no right to tell anybody that they have no right or reason to believe in God just because they lack proof, just as religious believers would have no right to tell an Athiest that they were wrong and ignorant for not believing or seeking proof. It seems to be a useful way of reaffirming the balance which leaves many Athiests feeling suppirior for not believing something whic is un-scientific.
I don't think you have the power to get someone banned that you seem to believe you do.
Believe me, most reported things get banned. Emile got banned for saying to someone that talking them to is like talking to a brick wall.
In fairness to the moderators, I think the comment was more along the lines of he wasn't much smarter than a brick wall. The difference being, I was directly attacking his intellect. Not the same as if I had told him the FSM had forced himself upon a mortal to create fettuccine.
I'm not making light of your pain. Simply pointing out my take on their reasoning.
By the by Prove God doesn't exist isn't the argument. What comes after the statement Prove God Doesn't exist, is the argument.
Keep yer cool, girl. I mean you Claire. You get too emotional.
The absolute fact of the matter is this:
Nobody can prove God exists, as religion is based on faith and faith is based on the belief of something that cannot be proved.
Nobody can prove God doesn't exist, because no matter what scientific explanation there is to anything, there is always the possibility that it is being masterminded by a greater being beyond the capacity of our intelligence.
The inability to prove that God exists does not mean God doesn't exist, and likewise the inability to prove that God doesn't exist does not mean God does exist.
That's quite simply all there is to this.For all anyone knows "God" is just the idea of total goodness. Don't ask who you're doing something for, ask why your doing it. The more human beings try to understand and grasp the meaning of God, the less Godly the entity becomes. You can't understand the idea of God, because the more you work it with your human brain, the more human the idea becomes, and that's where all your flaws come in; right with all the "humanity".
One day, a long time ago, an elephant fell square on top of me. I had two choices: Deny the elephant was on top of me....admit that something had happened totally out of the sphere of all logical sense...or search for the logic and sense of that elephant; embrace the fact that, yes, indeed, an elephant had fallen on top of me.
Had I denied the elephant, I would probably be struck there yet...elephant and all. Luckily, I survived.Well, I have learned a lot about persecution on this thread.
Related Discussions
- 686
Here's the twist... How can you prove that God doesn't exist?
by Gener Geminiano 14 years ago
You base your answers as much as possible with Science...
- 25
Can you prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist?
by M. T. Dremer 8 years ago
Can you prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist?I know this question sounds like I'm trolling but I assure you I'm trying to ask it legitimately. I see questions all the time on HubPages like "Do you believe in god?" and "If god doesn't exist, prove it." I would say...
- 2394
Why do atheists say God doesn't exist because there is suffering?
by Claire Evans 8 years ago
That's the typical Sam Harris argument. How does suffering negate God's existence? Maybe He's just watching. It doesn't mean He doesn't exist and for anyone to bring up suffering as proof of no God is indication of a logical fallacy.
- 14
Atheist say that they can't prove that God do not exist,so....
by Apostle Jack 12 years ago
Atheist say that they can't prove that God do not exist,so.......that make them just as ignorant about the matter as those that they say can't prove that He does.That is a clear view of the Pot calling the kettle black.Do you agree.There is more proof that He does exist than He doesn't.They don't...
- 23
Can you, without quoting or referencing the Bible give me solid arguments as to
by The Demon Writer 13 years ago
Can you, without quoting or referencing the Bible give me solid arguments as to the existence of GodDon't even mention the Bible! It is totally irrelevant and is not a credible source. It was not written by God, but men. So, without aid of your Bible, prove to me that God exists!
- 1184
Show me proof that God does not exist.
by zzron 11 years ago
Atheists claim that God does not exist, show me the proof that backs up this claim.